To:A. N. POTRESOV

To Alex. Nikolayevich

Published:First published in a shortened version in 1904 in the pamphlet: V. I. Lenin,One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, and in full in 1927.

      Sent from Geneva to Montreux (Switzerland).

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages164-166.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

September 13, 1903

Itried to have a talk with Y. O. recently, when the atmosphere of the impending
split was already in full evidence, and I want to try to have a talk with you
too, in the hope that you, like Y. O., would not be averse to making an attempt
at explanation. If this hope is unfounded, you will, of course, let me know, but
meanwhile I shall do what I consider necessary.

Therefusal of Martov to serve on the editorial board, his refusal and that of
other Party writers to collaborate, the refusal of a number of persons to work
for the Central Committee, and the propaganda of a boycott or passive resistance
are bound to lead, even if against the wishes of Martov and his friends, to a
split in the Party. Even if Martov adheres to a loyal stand (which he took up so
resolutely at the Congress), others will not, and the out come I have mentioned
will be inevitable. (Not for nothing, by the way, does Auntie, too, write
about “building a new hearth”.)

Andso I ask myself: over what, in point of fact, would we be parting company as
enemies for life? I go over all the events and impressions of the
Congress,[1]I realise that I often behaved and acted in a state of
frightful irritation, “frenziedly”; I am quite willing to admitthis fault of mine to anyone, if that can be called a fault which was
a natural product of the atmosphere, the reactions, the in terjections, the
struggle, etc. But examining now, quite unfrenziedly, the results attained, the
outcome achieved by frenzied struggle, I can detect nothing, absolutely
nothingin these results that is injurious to the Party, and absolutely nothing
that is an affront or insult to the Minority.

Ofcourse, the very fact of finding oneself in the minority could not but be
vexatious, but I categorically protest against the idea that we “cast
slurs” on anybody, that wewantedto insult or humiliate
anybody. Nothing of the kind. And one should not allow political differences to
lead to an interpretation of events based on accusing the other side of
unscrupulousness, chicanery, intrigue and other pleasantries we are hearing
mentioned more and more often in this atmosphere of an impending split. This
should not be allowed, for it is, to say the least, thenec plus ultraof irrationality.

Martovand I have had a political (and organisational) difference, as we had
dozens of times before. Defeated over 1 of the Rules, I could not but
strive with all my might forrevanchein what remained to me (and to
the Congress). I could not but strive, on the one hand, for a strictly Iskrist
Central Committee, and, on the other, for a trio on the editorial board that
would remove the very cause of our old, hopeless quarrels, that would unite per
sons of whom each has his own political line, of whom each makes decisions and
will always make decisions “with out regard for persons” and in
keeping with his own extreme conviction.

Isaid (during our conversation with you and Y. O. about the trio before the
Congress) that I regarded the inclusion in the Six of an absentee
member[2]as most harmful of all for the work; I also took exception at the time,
very strong exception, to Zasulich’s highly personal attitude (although
Y. O. has forgotten it); I said quite definitely (when you named themost
probableelected trio) that I too considered it the most probable and that
even if itremained alone, without going in for any co-optation (although at the time we mentioned one of the possible cooptations), I saw nothing
bad in that. Yuli Osipovich has forgotten this last statement of mine too, but I
remember it very well. But it is, of course, useless to argue about this. That
is not important; what is important is that with such a trio not one of those
painful, long-drawn-out, hope less quarrels with which we began the work ofIskrain 1900 and which were often repeated, making it impossible forus to work formonthson end—a     single one of suchquarrels would be possible. That is why I consider this trio theonlybusiness-like arrangement, theonlyone capable of being an official
institution, instead of a body based on indulgence and slackness, theonlyone to be a real centre, each member of which, I repeat, would
always state and defend his Party viewpoint,not one grain more, and irrespective of all personal motives,allconsiderations concerning
grievances, resignations, and so on.

Thistrio, after what had occurred at the Congress, undoubtedly meant
legitimising a political and organisational linein one respectdirected against Martov. Undoubtedly. Cause a rupture on that account? Break up
the Party be cause of it? Did not Martov and Plekhanov oppose me over the
question of demonstrations? And did not Martov and I oppose Plekhanov over the
question of the programme? Is not one side ofeverytrioalwaysup against the other two?

Ifthe majority of the Iskrists, both in theIskraorganisation and at
the Congress, found this particular shade of Martov’s line
organisationally and politically mistaken, is it not really senseless to attempt
to attribute this to “intrigue”, “incitement”, and so
forth? Would it not be senseless to try to talk away this fact byabusingthe Majority and calling them “riffraff”

Irepeat that, like the majority of the Iskrists at the Congress, I am
profoundly convinced that the line Martov adopted was wrong, and that he had to
be corrected. To take offence at this correction, to regard it as an insult,
etc., is unreasonable. We have not cast, and are not casting, any
“slurs” on anyone, nor are we excluding anyonefrom
work. And to cause a split because someone has been excludedfrom a
central bodyseems to me a piece of inconceivable folly.

[1]Meaningthe Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held on July 17 (30)-August
10 (23), 1903, first in Brussels, then in London.

[2]Thisrefers to P. B. Axelrod.